Gallegos v. Nash, San Francisco
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtBray, J.
Defendant Nash, San Francisco, a corporation, 1 appeals from an order granting a new trial after verdict in its favor.
Question Presented
Was the new trial improperly granted, being based upon the trial court’s assumption that it erred in giving an instruction on the doctrine of assumption of risk? The application of the doctrine depends upon whether there was evidence of one or more of the following matters: (a) violation of section 660, Vehicle Code; (b) knowledge by plaintiffs of the hazard; (e) assurance by defendant of condition of brakes.
Eecord
The theory of the complaint was that the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Finnegan v. Royal Realty Co.California Supreme Court · 1950
- Prescott v. Ralphs Grocery Co.California Supreme Court · 1954
- Conner v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1952
- Bickham v. Southern California Edison Co.California Court of Appeal · 1953
- Youngstown Steel Products Co. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Grey v. Fibreboard Paper Products Co.California Supreme Court · 1966
- Rosenberg v. WittenbornCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
- Tavernier v. MaesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1966
- Dorsic v. KurtinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1971
- Sperling v. HatchCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.